Archived: Great Alne Park

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People who used the service and their relatives told us staff were compassionate, well -trained and professional. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People's healthcare needs were being met and medicines were being managed safely.

People were protected against avoidable harm, abuse, neglect and discrimination. The care and support they received was safe.

People's likes, preferences and dislikes were assessed, and care packages met people's expectations and needs. Care plans were up to date and very detailed as to what care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate identified risks.

Staff were being recruited safely and there were enough staff to take care of people. Staff were receiving appropriate training and they told us the training was good and relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the registered manager and were receiving formal supervision and spot checks, where they could discuss their ongoing development needs.

People and their relatives knew how to use the provider’s complaints procedures. The registered manager sought regular customer feedback in the form of questionnaires and care reviews. People, relatives and staff were complimentary of the registered manager/provider stating they were extremely friendly, approachable and very experienced. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and where issues were identified, they acted to make improvements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection.

The last rating for this service was good [published 14 September 2017].

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Duo Homecare provides personal care for people in their own home. There were ten people receiving services for which CQC registration was required at the time we inspected.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service was run.

People received the care they needed to reduce risks to their safety and to protect them from the risk of abuse. Staff understood some people needed support and encouragement to stay as safe as possible, and worked with other organisations to develop plans to provide the care people wanted. There was enough staff employed to care for people at the times they preferred, and to chat to people, so they did not feel isolated. Where people wanted assistance to take their medicines this was given by staff who knew how to do this safely.

Staff used their skills and knowledge to provide care to people in the ways they preferred. Staff worked with other professionals when required so people’s health needs were met. Staff took action when they had concerns for people’s health and people were encouraged to have enough to eat and drink to remain well. People were supported by staff who understood how to check if they agreed to the care offered, and who promoted their rights.

People had built strong bonds with the consistent staff team who supported them and trusted the staff that cared for them. People told us they felt valued by the staff that assisted them. Staff made sure people were receiving their day to day care in the ways they wanted. People were supported by staff who took their need for dignity and privacy into account, and this helped people to be reassured when they were cared for.

People decided what care they wanted and how they wanted this to be planned and reviewed. Staff worked flexibly so people received the care they needed, based on their individual histories and preferences. People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated as their needs changed, so they would continue to receive the care they needed. Support was available if people wanted to make any complaints about the service. Processes for managing complaints were in place, so any lessons would be learnt. None of the people or their relatives had needed to raise any formal complaints since their care had commenced.

Communication with the registered manager and provider was open, and people and their relatives were able to contact staff without delay. Staff understood how the registered manager expected people’s care to be given and were supported to provide good care. The registered manager and provider often provided care to people. They used this and other regular checks to make sure people were happy with the support provided. People and their relatives were encouraged to provide their views on the quality of the service, so this would develop further. A number of compliments had been received regarding the quality of the care provided and the kindness of staff.